I'm betting this is typical of that area of New Orleans. It just so happens that there was a large crowd at the time of the shooting. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that this was not someone attempting to hurt or kill large amounts of people.

Only three people were seriously hurt, the others were grazed by bullets or hut in the melee that followed.

Unfortunately people get shot at parades here, especially when there is a turf war or retaliation going on previous shooting.

The local paper, the Times Picayune recently ran a story where they traced a number of shootings over the past couple of years to one incident that has led to one revenge shooting after another. Wouldn't be surprised to learn that yesterday's incident was the same: someone or someones with a gun out to settle a score. Sad that it has come to this.

Really? I don't recall many (if any) pressure cookers in Saudi Arabia or Iraq. Perhaps I just didn't notice. I do recall street explosions - maybe it was the nails? OMG, I have to purge the workshop!

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you&#8217;re trying to say. If you served in the Middle East, you were briefed on basic household products used in IEDs, and everyday objects used to hide and store IED (dead cows, fruit boxes, metal food jars, etc).

Pressure cookers and nails are not manufactured with the intent to kill. Guns are......... Big difference.

Click to expand...

It does not matter if Guns are manufactured with &#8220;intent&#8221; to kill, and other products and/or objects are not.

It&#8217;s the INTENT of a human that counts. If he/she does not have a Gun, but INTENDS to kill then she/he will design/invent another mechanism for killing.

Before Guns were invented other methods of mass killings were used for centuries&#8230; If you take a Gun apart, it&#8217;s all made off VERY innocent materials.

If the parade shooting is gang turf-war related, and the gang members did not have a gun, they could have thrown a Molotoff Cocktail at the enemies and still hurt people in the crowd in close proximity of the conflict. Or one gang member could have been trying to run down the opposition with a car and accidentally swirl into the crowd&#8230;&#8230;. Possibilities are endless&#8230;

Many everyday objects can be used to kill people if one intends to kill.

One thing is to implement strict laws on safe gun keeping and ownership, another is to prohibit them all together like the extreme left-wing liberal mantra proclaims.

Criminals will find ways to acquire guns illegally, and it&#8217;s the regular citizens who will go unprotected in their own homes and businesses.

Crazies and Terrorists will find other methods to kill if that is their INTENT.

Switzerland has the highest gun ownership in the world, but kids don&#8217;t run into schools shooting mates, and crazies don&#8217;t shoot down parade crowds, and gun-related killings are the lowest among many civilized countries.

Instead of &#8220;prohibiting&#8221; guns, why don&#8217;t anti-gun Americans study why Switzerland managed to accomplish gun safety, and implement it in their own country&#8230;.. But that would mean not letting just anybody to come an live in your country, ONLY QUALITY people&#8230;&#8230; .. But that would mean that ALL US male citizens would have to go through basic military training and learn the fire arms usage and storage. And so on&#8230;.

Fix yourself - don&#8217;t fix others by &#8220;prohibiting&#8221;&#8230; USA already had &#8220;Alcohol Prohibition&#8221;&#8230;.. and we all know how that turned out, and how many more people died trying to get alcohol vs. how many died of alcoholism. Not to mention those who wanted alcohol GOT ALCOHOL.

An armed society is only polite only if those who are armed don't use their weapons. How can you equate mass shootings in the US with a polite society?

I'd sure like some of whatever that is you are smoking.

Click to expand...

LMAO!

I think you should have the right to own a gun. It's your right as an American. But what I don't get is why the legislation didn't pass that required a more extensive background check on those who wish to purchase them. Why not make absolutely positively sure the person you're giving the gun to doesn't have a history of violence/instability/anger management issues/etc.? Isn't it better to be safe?

I think you should have the right to own a gun. It's your right as an American. But what I don't get is why the legislation didn't pass that required a more extensive background check on those who wish to purchase them. Why not make absolutely positively sure the person you're giving the gun to doesn't have a history of violence/instability/anger management issues/etc.? Isn't it better to be safe?

Click to expand...

ITA. I don't get the argument against mandatory background checks- at all.

Weird how there has been so little press on this incident, compared to others as of late.

ITA. I don't get the argument against mandatory background checks- at all.

Weird how there has been so little press on this incident, compared to others as of late.

Click to expand...

Well New Orleans isn't known to be a peaceful town. Crime and violence there are terrible but very common, as sad as that is. It's not out of the norm for that city so the media doesn't care very much.

I think you should have the right to own a gun. It's your right as an American.

Click to expand...

Well, that's kind of you. But I'm not an American. I find the continual assertion of that very statement 'your right as an American' interesting as it somehow suggests that the right to gun ownership is intrinsic to American society in particular. And the notion that armed security guns are the solution to school shootings really sad.

And then somehow this right is spun to be more important than the rights of Americans to live in safety. This is particularly salient with respect to American children who have been been victim of mass shootings in schools - and to adult victims as well, of course.

I'm glad I don't feel the need to have a gun for self-protection and wouldn't want to own one. In part because the problem with owning one, is that one might use is it in a moment of anger and hurt, even kill, someone.

But what I don't get is why the legislation didn't pass that required a more extensive background check on those who wish to purchase them. Why not make absolutely positively sure the person you're giving the gun to doesn't have a history of violence/instability/anger management issues/etc.? Isn't it better to be safe?

Click to expand...

What about the kids who get their hands on the parents guns? What would you do to prevent that?

No, but it is intrinsic in our Constitution and shootings in the US are what we're discussing..

Click to expand...

But isn't also intrinsic in the Constitutions of other democracies? I think I have the right to own a gun as a Canadian.

And isn't the constant defense of that Constitutional right becoming problematic in light of gun violence in the US? It seems me that this right is constantly being foregrounded in a manner that makes its consequences less important.

I don't want to take anyone's right to bear arms away. But the problems of gun violence in the US are horrific and tragic. In light of that, the constant rights argument becomes very tiresome.